In article <d68o49$ma...@soapbox.cs.bham.ac.uk>,
<A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Fine. I've just approved your latest message!
Thanks. I think this will be the last one until I've doen a lot more
exploring....
>
>
>Ideally, instead of producing a port to BeOS it would be good to produce
>mechanisms to generate the BeOS port from the latest version of linux
>poplog. But maybe that will be too difficult.
I think if I ever get a working port, inserting conditional statements
in the sources for compilation should be straightforward, So I guess
either updating on a BeOS installation or cross-compiling from Linux
should work.
>
>(Running the install script for linux poplog V15.6, i.e. rebuilding all
>the system saved images then re-linking and running newpop to relink and
>build user saved images, indexes etc., on a 2010 ghz AMD64 takes less
>than 12 seconds.
(:-)) [Yes -- saw your correction...]
>
>The next bit should be in a FAQ, and I think I'll copy this to a file in
>the sysdoc directory
>
> http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/sysdoc/pop11-executables.txt
>
Yes that's definitely a needed addition to the docs, I think.
I have a much better understanding of the setup now.
> [....]
>
>Because there are hard links to basepop11 in $popsys, 'mv' should never
>be used to install a new basepop11. It should always be done using 'cp'
>so that the links are preserved.
>(I think symbolic links did not exist when that scheme was invented.
>They are more flexible than hard links).
Slightly ironically, BeOS *only* has symbolic links, so that particlular
hazard doesn't worry me! (And I don't believe it causes asny new ones.)
>
>
>I hope that helps.
Very much. Thanks again.
-- Pete --
|